John Adams - Evaluation

Coming between the administrations of two presidents of immortal fame, the
presidency of John Adams has been difficult for historians to evaluate and
for posterity to appreciate. He had neither Washington's ability to
inspire reverence nor Jefferson's understanding of democratic
ideas. In his own view, his greatest achievement had been to make peace
with France, but modern research has emphasized that Talleyrand and
Napoleon neither wanted nor expected a military encounter with the United
States and, therefore, that a stronger settlement with France might have
been possible. He also took great pride in his elevation of John Marshall
to the Supreme Court; yet in 1801 he could not have foreseen the strength
that Marshall would infuse into the federal judiciary for the next three
decades.

The contribution of the Adams presidency lay not so much in its specific
accomplishments as in its strengthening the office at a critical time when
it might easily have veered off the course set by Washington.
Adams' conception of a strong, independent president who mediated
between contending interests enabled him to withstand the violent
political passions of the time, which threatened to tear apart the young
republic.

Adams' view of the office and his detestation of parties and
factions rendered him incapable of bridging the constitutional separation
of powers through party leadership. But had he tried, he could not have
succeeded, for the Federalists were not a party in the modern sense. As
Adams expressed it, his party was "composed of the most
heterogeneous ingredients that ever were put together." Only such
an independent president as Adams could have prevented the various
Federalist factions from further splintering the party and possibly the
nation itself during the four years after the retirement of Washington. No
one can be entirely certain of Hamilton's intentions in this
period, but the available evidence strongly suggests that any president
following his lead would have provoked civil war. Or had Jefferson been
elected in 1796, when he fell short by only three electoral votes, he
could scarcely have convinced the northern states that he was not a tool
of France. In this respect, Jefferson owed far more to Adams than he seems
to have realized. As Joseph Charles has pointed out, the four years under
Adams provided the correct balance of motivation and time for Jeffersonian
democracy to develop as a political movement and for the Republicans to
gain experience, clarify their principles, and perfect the organization
with which they were to govern the nation for the next twenty-eight years.

When, seven years after leaving Washington, John Adams expressed approval
of his son John Quincy Adams' switching parties from Federalist to
Republican, he provided testimony to the success of his own
administration.